During more than a decade efforts have been made to transform the harbor of Holbæk from being based on transportation and logistics to city and center purposes. Several major plans have been designed for the realization of the good harbor in Holbæk, and the public has shown a lot of engagement herein. In this paper I will examine how the good harbor in Holbæk will be achieved by analyzing four issues: 1. What is the importance of the geographical demarcation of the harbor in achieving the good harbor? 2. How has the good harbor until now been achieved in concrete county plans and projects? 3. How will the good harbor in the future be achieved in concrete county plans and projects? 4. Which part does the harbor group consisting of politicians from the city council and stakeholders around the harbor (residents, associations and entrepreneurs) play in achieving the good harbor? I use the theory of strategy-in-practice to analyze the first three issues, and the theory of Interactive Governance to analyze the fourth and last issue. I use the perspective of constructivism as analytical strategy to interpret the four cases I have chosen and the seven interviews with representatives of the stakeholders around the harbor. The overall conclusion is that the good harbor is being achieved in two major ways. The one of which is developers investing in plants that demand a county plan or causes such a plan. The other is the harbor group (co)creating projects, that the city council afterwards formally decides to fulfill. The good harbor thereby is not realized in the manor the city council imagined as continuous realization of the overall plan and the assigned objectives by the harbor group. My findings are as follows: 1. The geographical demarcation of the harbor in achieving the good harbor is of major importance, because it makes it possible for the city council to include and exclude stakeholders along the way and to work with more or less concrete projects, and it brings the opportunity to (re)create the meaning of the past, the present and the future. 2. The good harbor has until now been achieved by two county plans and two projects containing a lot of elements. The two county plans both have been very disputed in the city council. One of them has also been very disputed amongst the stakeholders, while the other one has been greatly accepted by the stakeholders. Both of the projects have been discussed in the harbor group before they were adopted by the city council, and 4 even though the stakeholders did not agree on all elements of the projects, there seemed to be consensus about the projects all the way. 3. The future achievement of the good harbor is based on bringing different interests and considerations into bearing. Some political agreements bring a sort of a house of indoor and outdoor swimming and theatre to the forefront, and furthermore the politicians want more living quarters. The stakeholders on the other hand want more projects that gives more impetus to the harbor area, they are all but one positive about the house of indoor and outdoor swimming and theatre, but they are mostly opposed to more living quarters. 4. The harbor group is as a governance network somewhat ineffective and the city councils metagovernance of it is strong but less than skillful. None the less, the harbor group plays an important role in the achievement of the good harbor, due to the fact that it contributes a great deal to strengthen the legitimization, credibility and understanding of the way the good harbor is being achieved.
|Educations||, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||57|